Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for the purpose of limitation for reassessment after remand, the period of one year under section 21(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 runs from service of the remand order on the State Representative or from receipt of the copy of the remand order by the assessing authority, and whether the deeming provision in rule 68(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules, 1948 extends service on the State Representative to service on the assessing authority.
Analysis: Section 21(4) and section 21(6) use clear and unambiguous language and tie the commencement and exclusion of limitation to receipt by the assessing authority of the relevant order. The statutory text does not refer to service on the State Representative for computing limitation. Rule 68(9) deems service on the State Representative to be service on the Commissioner only, and the legal fiction cannot be extended beyond its express field. The assessing authority is distinct from the Commissioner and the State Representative, and the court cannot read into the provision a further deeming of service on the assessing authority. In taxing statutes, plain language must prevail and equity cannot alter the statutory computation of limitation.
Conclusion: The limitation for making reassessment after remand was to be computed from receipt of the remand order by the assessing authority, not from service on the State Representative. The reassessment order was therefore within time and the assessee's contention failed.